refers to the Saviour, and was intended as an assurance that the kingdom of Judah should continue until the great event, therein predicted, should have taken place; and the latter in the 16th verse, in which the prophet declares to Ahaz, that before his son Shearjashub should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the territories of Rezin and Pekah, which, on account of the close alliance of these two kings, are here spoken of as one land, should be forsaken of both her kings. The 16th verse should more properly be rendered thus-" For before this child" (meaning, not Immanuel, but Shearjashub, whom the prophet was directed to bring with him, verse 3, and who is mentioned as a sign in chapter viii. 18) "shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land shall become desolate or forsaken, by whose two kings thou art distressed." This was very soon fulfilled; for within two or three years after this, Hosea conspired against Pekah and slew him, 2 Kings xv. 30; and the King of Assyria took Damascus and slew Rezin, 2 Kings xvi. 9.

The 14th and 15th verses, then, refer to Christ. The former verse speaks of his divine nature and miraculous incarnation. The word rendered "sign," literally implies a miracle; and the expression "a virgin," should be translated "the virgin." The allusion is to a particular virgin, the woman referred to in Gen. iii. 15, whose seed was to bruise the serpent's head, the only virgin who should ever become a mother in this miraculous way. The 15th verse refers to the human nature of Christ" Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good;" that is, he shall be a real infant, though conceived in a miraculous way; he shall be true and proper man, possessing both a human body and a human soul, the former nourished on the ordinary food of children, and the latter increasing in wisdom and knowledge, and advancing to years of discretion and mature judgment through all the usual and successive stages of intellectual growth. But the question has been asked, what comfort could it have given to Ahaz, under the circumstances in which he was placed, to tell him of an event which was to occur about 700 years afterwards? We answer, much every way. For the prophecy implied that his kingdom should continue for 700 years at least, or until the miraculous event which is here predicted

should occur, that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh should come, Gen. xlix. 10. The preface, which occurs in the 13th verse, may have been intended as a reproof of the unbelief of Ahaz in former predictions, as if the prophet had said—" Is it a small matter that you weary God by not resting with simple and implicit confidence upon his former declarations that the sceptre should continue to be swayed by Judah until Christ should come? why should you be so alarmed for the destruction of your kingdom, seeing that this event has not yet taken place?" Besides, independently of this prophecy of Christ, that which occurs in the 16th verse, refers, as we have shewn, to the approaching destruction of the two kings: and thus there is a pledge given in this passage, both of the immediate preservation, as well as of the future continuance, of the kingdom of Judah.

There are some commentators who argue that this prophecy is referred to the circumstances of the Saviour's birth, by what they call the principle of accommodation. By this principle, they mean that a prophecy which originally related to some other circumstance, is used by a New Testament writer as indirectly applicable to, and illustrative of a subject of which he is treating, on account of some resemblance between

the two events. But this is a very dangerous principle, and one which, if generally adopted, would go far to destroy the argument for the truth of Christianity which the prophecies of the Old Testament supply. No doubt there are some of the prophecies of the Old Testament, whose literal and precise fulfilment is to be found only in the history of Christ or of his Church, which may have received a typical accomplishment very soon after they were delivered, as a pledge that the principal and primary event to which they referred should certainly occur; and to this typical fulfilment, but not to the other, we may apply the principle of accommodation. Indeed, the principle of the literal and typical accomplishment of some of the prophecies is an important and valuable one, but we should be always careful to regard the fulfilment which refers directly to Christ or to his Church as the literal one. The prediction which is here quoted from the book of Isaiah was literally fulfilled in the miraculous conception and nativity of the Saviour, and in nothing else;

for the words by which the Evangelist introduces it" now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet"-are too strong and express to admit of any other interpretation.

But it may naturally be asked, did not the prophecy of Isaiah say that the Saviour should be called IMMANUEL, and does not the history of St. Matthew say that his name was called JESUS, and how therefore was the prophecy fulfilled in this particular? We answer:-Jesus and Immanuel may be regarded as equivalent in signification: the only difference is this, that Immanuel is a figurative representation of the same idea. which is expressed literally by the name of Jesus; and this circumstance is quite con

sistent with the fact that the former occurs in prophecy, which is often expressed in figurative language. The import of the name Jesus is determined by the Evangelist. It is not derived from the Greek verb which signifies to heal, for St. Matthew does not say, "thou shalt call his name Jesus because he shall heal," but because he "shall save his people from their sins." Therefore it must be derived from a word that signifies to save, and therefore it must be derived from the Hebrew, and is, in fact, to be traced back to the word Yehoshuah, or Yeshuah, which literally signifies Jehovah the Saviour. Now the word Immanuel signifies God with us; but the phrase "God with us," or " God is with us," is an expression of confidence in the saving and protecting mercy of God, and is equivalent with saying God is our Saviour. This will appear evident from an examination of the following passagesNumb. xiv. 9, Judges vi. 13, 1 Kings viii. 57, 2 Kings vi. 16, Isaiah viii. 10, and from Psalm xlvi. 7, 11, in which the phrase, "The Lord of Hosts is with us," is explained by what follows, "The God of Jacob is our refuge," or our Saviour. So that there is, in reality, no difference in meaning between the words Jesus and Immanuel, whilst the word Immanuel is useful as an index to point us to the true signification of the word Jesus. Still it is extremely probable that this part of the prophecy shall yet receive a more precise and literal accomplishment, when Christ shall appear a second time without sin unto salvation: that whilst JESUS is the name by which the Saviour is called during this dispensation of

--

grace, when he is saving his people from their sins, in that dispensation of glory which is the object of the Church's hope, he shall be literally called by the name of IMMANUEL; for then shall be accomplished the prediction which the Apostle heard in Patmos. "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God," Rev. xxi. 3.

24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS.

These verses are connected with the 21st, the 22d and 23d being a parenthesis. The doubts and perplexities of Joseph are now entirely removed by the message which God had sent to him by the angel, and therefore, as soon as he is raised from sleep, he enters at once upon the path of humble and willing obedience. Thus, when the will of God has been clearly ascertained and received with the homage of faith, the Christian will always act in conformity with it, no matter how opposed it may be to his previous views and intentions. Joseph took Mary home to his humble dwelling, and acted as her friend and protector until the prophecy was accomplished, and she brought forth a son. The words, "her first-born son," should rather have been," her son, the first born." Jesus was not only the son of Mary, but was also the first-born of God, for it is written of him, "I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth," Ps. lxxxix. 27.

If we understand the expression "firstborn," as implying that Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary, it only determines that she had no children before him, but does not settle the question as to whether she had any children afterwards. It is of much importance to attend to the fact of Christ having been her first-born son, as otherwise he would not have been the heir of David's throne, nor could the prophecy of Isaiah, referred to by St. Matthew, have been fulfilled. But it is of no consequence to determine whether she had any other children, although it has been made a point of faith by the Greek and

Roman churches that she never had. Indeed, the 25th verse rather implies that she had. Private Christians are too much disposed to endeavour to penetrate beyond the bounds of revelation, and to intrude into things not seen, and churches are too much disposed to multiply terms of communion, and exalt into articles of faith points upon which the word of God has given no decisive information. Let us endeavour, by divine grace, to guard against this tendency, and whilst we strive earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, to walk humbly and prayerfully in that path of obedience which God has marked out for us, guided by that light which his word supplies.

CHAPTER II.

The Visit of the Magi.

1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem,

2. Saying, where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him.

Here we are informed of the birth-place of the Saviour; it was in Bethlehem of Judea. There were two cities of this name, Bethlehem of Galilee, a city of Zebulun, Josh. xix. 15, Judges xii. 10, and the Bethlehem here mentioned, which was in the district belonging to the tribe of Judah, about six miles to the south of Jerusalem. It is called Ephrath, Gen. xlviii. 7, and Ephratah, Micah v. 2, and its inhabitants Ephrathites, Ruth i. 2, 1 Sam. xvii. 12. It was the birthplace of David. The import of Bethlehem is the house of bread: an appropriate name for the birth-place of Him who is the bread of life that came down from heaven.

The time also of our Saviour's birth is mentioned here" in the days of Herod the King." At this time Judea was under the power of Rome, but Herod had been made king by Anthony and Augustus. He

was born about 70 years before the birth of Christ, and reigned for 37 years. He was most probably an Idumean. He is here called "Herod the King" to distinguish him from Herod the Tetrarch, and others of the same name. He married ten wives, and had several children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren, some of whom are mentioned in Scripture, whom it may be well to enumerate here.

1. His CHILDREN who are mentioned in the New Testament are the four following: HEROD PHILIP, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne the daughter of Simon the High Priest. He married Herodias, who was also his niece, Luke iii. 19.

ARCHELAUS, son of Herod and Malthace a Samaritan, his fourth wife. He is mentioned in Matth. ii. 22 as reigning in Judea in place of his father. The kingdom was left to him by his father's will, but this was not fully ratified by Augustus, as he only assigned to him a part of his father's territories, with the title of Ethnarch. He governed Judea for seven years, and was banished for his cruelties.

HEROD ANTIPAS, son of Herod and Cleopatra his fifth wife. He was appointed by Augustus governor of Galilee and Peræa. It was he who divorced his former wife in order to marry Herodias the wife of his brother Philip, who was still living. For this he was reproved by John the Baptist, whom

he afterwards beheaded, Matth. xiv. 3, 4, Mark vi. 14, 17, 18, Luke iii. 19, 20. He was the Herod to whom Pilate sent Christ, Luke xxiii. 7.

PHILIP, Son of Herod and Cleopatra. He is mentioned in Luke iii. 1, as having been Tetrarch of Trachonitis.

2. The GRAND-CHILDREN of Herod who are mentioned in the New Testament are the three following:

HEROD AGRIPPA, son of Aristobulus. It was he who killed James the brother of John with the sword, Acts xii. 1.

HERODIAS, the daughter of Aristobulus. She was first married to her uncle Philip, by whom she had Salome, but afterwards married Herod Antipas.

SALOME, the daughter of Herod Philip and Herodias. She was therefore the granddaughter of Herod the Great by her father's side, and his great-granddaughter by her mo ther's side. It was she who danced before Herod Antipas, and was instructed by her

mother to demand the head of John the Baptist, Matth. xiv. 6.

3. The GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN of Herod who are mentioned in the New Testament are the three following:

AGRIPPA, the son of Herod Agrippa. It was before him that Paul pleaded, Acts

XXV. 13.

BERNICE, sister of Agrippa, mentioned also in Acts xxv. 13.

DRUSILLA, also sister of Agrippa. She was married to Felix the governor of Judea, Acts xxiv. 24.

The Evangelist, having mentioned the time and place of the Saviour's nativity, proceeds to relate a remarkable event which took place very soon afterwards, -the arrival of the eastern sages to do homage to the newly-born King of the Jews. He introduces the account by the word "behold:" a word which is generally used when any very wonderful circumstance is about to be mentioned or described. The word rendered "wise men" is literally MAGI. They belonged to a particular class of wise men, who were called in the East Magi, like those who were called Philosophers in Greece, Brachmans in India, or Druids in Germany. They were chiefly devoted to the study of Astronomy, Natural Philosophy, and Theology. Probably those who are mentioned here came from Arabia or Persia. But how many there were? of what rank? how long they were coming? or at what precise time after our Saviour's birth they arrived? are questions which are totally unimportant, and the true answers to which cannot be ascertained. It is a strong presumptive evidence of the divine original of Scripture, that all such circumstantial details are passed over by the sacred writers. In a merely human composition these matters would have been dwelt upon, as containing much to gratify the curiosity, or to please the fancy of the reader. But this is not the design of the word of God; it was written for the moral instruction and spiritual benefit of man, to hold forth CHRIST as the prominent object of the sinner's faith; and therefore, so much of history is laid before us as the divine author of the Bible knew would be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and serve as an index to point us continually to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. We may mention, however,

that some commentators have supposed that there were three wise men who came on this occasion, and that they were of royal dignity. But probably this interpretation is entirely founded upon the circumstance of their having presented three kinds of gifts, and upon the supposition of their arrival having been in literal fulfilment of the prophecy in Psalm Ixxii. 10, "The Kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bring presents; the Kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts."

The question which the Magi asked on their arrival in Jerusalem is here stated"Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" and the reason which they gave for having undertaken the journey is annexed to it" for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him." Wherever they came from, it was from a great distance. It has been computed that they travelled, in all, nearly 2000 miles, and this through a difficult and dangerous journey. Truly their conduct is calculated to reprove the carelessness and folly of many persons calling themselves Christians, who, though within reach of the ministrations of the gospel, and opportunities of spiritual improvement, never take the least advantage of them.

But it is natural to inquire how the Magi received this information of the birth of a king, and how they knew that the star which they saw was the signal of his birth? To this it has been answered, that it is very probable that they were acquainted with some of the Old Testament Scriptures, and conjectured that in the appearance of this star the prophecy of Balaam was receiving its accomplishment "there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel," Numbers xxiv. 17. There was certainly a very prevalent expectation throughout the world, for some time before the nativity of Christ, that a prince would soon appear in Judea, who should acquire universal dominion. This impression might have been produced by the Jews themselves during their captivity, and at other times. But there is no occasion for these suppositions. It is evident from the sequel, verse 12, that these men were led to Christ by a divine intimation and providence. It was certainly not their wisdom that brought them. Whilst we do not despise or depreciate human learning, let us be careful not to overrate it. The wisdom of this world has never yet brought a sinner to the Saviour. The light of science